A Catholic Blog
A priest writing reflections on theology, philosophy, and Catholicism. I'll occasionaly write movie reviews, rants, and discussion topics. I write from my experiences, personal and intellectual, for my benefit and yours (should you get any from it). None of what I write is official or representative of my diocese or parish, just my semi-public attempt at figuring things out and sharing it with you for the sake of dialogue.

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

Part I-3: Why “Catholic”?

We must now place
ourselves at this pivotal point in history. The last of the Apostles
has died, the Church is flowering in various pockets around the
Empire, and many men and women of different cultures heard of Christ
and are coming to Him and His Church. The men who were given
authority by the Apostles are in their first, second, or third
generation depending on the area. Persecutions came in periodic and
violent waves which aim to strike fear into those who hold to the
teachings of the Church. Priests and bishops are targeted to scatter
the flock.

One can not
understand the importance of the use of name “catholic” unless he
also understand the primacy of Peter and the papacy. The papacy is
perhaps one of the greatest stumbling block among Christians—how
could one man claim to be above all others? —what so important
about what Rome thinks? —why should my local concerns be any
concern of the Pope? Many other questions, doubts, and derision are
hurled in Rome's direction. While I couldn't possibly quell every
single difficulty, I can present to you how the bishop of Rome was
regarded by the early Church.

Whoever wishes to study their faith or grow in it would do well to study St. Peter.

We have already
seen that the bishop to the early Christian (for the most part) was a
sign of authority. While we have only seen a few authors in this
matter, it is important to note that the institution of bishop,
priest, and deacon has persisted for nearly our whole history.
Bishops could not necessarily use force or a standing army to enact
their will at this time. They relied on the consent of their people
to their ministry, which many gave them. Bishops, we will recall,
were men selected by the people and tested by the previous leaders to
be men of virtue and the Spirit. Bishops were not respected merely
for their office but because they were worthy of respect.

In the Acts of the
Apostles some communities had argued whether or not Gentiles must
become follow the Mosaic covenant before they enter into a covenant
with Christ in baptism. Paul and Barnabas, well respected as they
were, could not resolve the matter (cf. Acts 15:2). They decided that
they would go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and presbyters there. The
disagreement continued, and “after much debate, Peter got up and
[addressed them]” (15:7). Peter pronounced definitively the action
the counsel should take. James bolstered this decision by assent and
the rest of those gathered agreed to the new proposal. They claimed
that “it is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place
on you any burden beyond [what is required]” (15:28).

This passage
establishes a number of things in our history and should be reviewed
carefully. We notice that a problem was presented to the early Church
and from there, when it could not be resolved locally, it was brought
to the universal Church—that is to say, its focal point was the
gathering of the Apostles. In this gathering a great deal of debate
took place, but it was Peter who spoke first—a biblical sign of
importance when among a group. When Peter spoke all fell silent,
which itself is a sign of assent with what had been spoken. All those
present acted in harmony with Peter and the Church then sent each
bishop and his priests to their local communities to deliver the
decision to all member of the faith.

Learned men of faith, the Apostles and presbyters, gathered together to discuss a policy and rule that would be shared among all churches.

It
should be said briefly that Peter is essential to this discussion,
for some may ask “why is Peter so important?” There are two
passages that establish his importance, and both passages are Christ
speaking to Peter. The first
is when Christ foretells Peter's denial. Christ confides in him that
he and the Apostles would be scattered. Christ prayed personally for
Peter's faith that it would not fail. Christ says that “once you
have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32).
Peter turned away, but as Christ foretold he turned back. Peter,
likewise, strengthened his brothers by his example. He was the first
to speak for all at Pentecost, and in the post-resurrection
narratives, whenever a group and Peter are gathered Peter usually
speaks first and often for the group. The second
is clearly the most famous, and should be taken in conjunction with
all Peter does in Acts along with the Apostles. Christ first blesses
Peter and then says “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my Church” (Mt 16:18). The authors of Scripture had a preference
for Peter because Christ had a special mission and preference for
Peter. His primacy was evident in Scripture and it was evident by
early Christian authors.

Among
these early authors an interesting pattern confronts us. When Peter
is mentioned, usually Paul is not far behind. Both were considered to
be the greatest disciples because each one spoke with power and
authority. Both traveled extensively and both were martyred for the
faith after enduring many trials. Both performed miracles, raised
someone from the dead, and performed many great works. Ignatius of
Antioch says “Not like Peter and Paul do I issue orders to you.
They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free[.]” (Letter to the Romans, sec. 4). Ignatius in another letter, however, says “[Christ] came to Peter
and Peter's companions [i.e., the Apostles]” (Letter to the Smyrneans, sec. 3).

Paul, a great and mighty Apostle in his own right, realized he was
not a member of the Twelve. He knew that the Holy Spirit was with him
and he acted rightly. All the same, for his own assurance and as an
example to all the faithful, he “went up in accord with a
revelation, and [he] presented to them [the leaders in Jerusalem] the
gospel [he] preached to the Gentiles—but privately to those of
repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain” (Gal
2:2).

Paul's judgment
was correct, and he even rebuked Peter's conduct, yet he still sought
him and the other Apostles in Jerusalem to confirm that his actions
were in accord with the whole Church. Paul, in his greatness,
submitted himself to the council of the whole Church. As I have just
recounted, that council in Jerusalem is where Paul and the Apostles
discussed and gave each other council and where Peter had pronounced
the final decision by all as binding.

The
first time that Catholic
is ever mentioned in the history of our Church as a unique title is
in conjunction with the office of bishop. We have seen that the
office of bishop was one of authority—this is made known by Paul in
his various letters. While presbyters, or priests, were present to
give counsel to the bishop and Apostles, it was the Apostles who held
the final say. As we have seen tradition was also tied up with the
bishop. Catholic is united to the office of bishop just as Tradition
is.

I have gone over
Peter in order to convey a truth of the Catholic Church, namely that
when many are gathered in council there must be one who is able to
speak definitively and with authority about matters important to all.
When all were gathered into one place, such as the council of
Jerusalem, it was Peter who spoke with authority. This was true
before the Holy Spirit came upon them (cf. Acts 1:15ff) and after
(Acts 2: 14-47, esp. vv. 38-41).

When
the Apostles, most notably Paul and those whom he wrote to, were in
their own territories and churches they were the local authority. This is seen most simply in Paul's letter to
Philemon, who is a “co-worker” of Paul (i.e., a bishop) and is
addressed to the “church at your house.” Paul pleads with him to
act accordingly, but Philemon is the authority in his local church
(See also Acts 14:23).

This
is where “catholic” enters the scene. It was first used by
Ignatius of Antioch around 105-108 AD. As I mentioned above, the
bishop was crucial to the life and unity of as well as those whom he
appointed to the tasks of that local area. St. Ignatius writes
definitively: “ You must all follow the lead of the bishop, [just]
as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as
you would the Apostles; … Let no one do anything touching the
Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist
be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom
he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people
be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It
is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to
baptize or to hold agape [i.e., Eucharist]; but whatever he approves
is pleasing to God" (Letter to the Smyrneans, sec. 8).

“Catholic”
is tied up with many things: the Eucharist, what we believe about
Jesus Christ, various doctrines, but the term is used most directly
with living in concord with one another and living in concord with
the bishop. In many cases, being Catholic is most difficult because
we have to trust in a humanity that is lead by the Spirit. This does
not mean humanity will never err, but it does mean that we trust in
the special grace given to the Apostles by Christ and in turn those
Apostles to their successors. Christ entrusted His Church, both His
bride and His Body, to human beings. Humanity while weak and limited
is that same humanity Christ died for. Christ entrusted His mission
to all who are baptized, but he entrusted the care of His Church to
those shepherds that He Himself had chosen. The shepherds were the
bishops, for the name itself means “guardian” and “overseer.”

Finally, we shall see how this culminated in the establishment of Peter in Rome.